Euthanasia

[aswad]

What do you think about the euthansia ?
Are you agree with it or do you think this is immoral ?

Definition, history, forms, is juridical.

Definition: For Euthanasia, that etimologicamente means "good death", according to the Declaration of the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he intends: "an action or an omission that of nature, or at least in the intentions, proxy the death to the purpose to eliminate each pain."

This definition can be integrated adding to the concept of death without pain, that of "death with dignity", meaning with this last the respect that every person has to give to the really Me. This concept becomes more and more pregnant to our days since, in the western world, at least the eighty for one hundred of the deaths happen to proper house and among the affection of the joined ones not anymore, but in hospital environment, often characterized by the isolation and by her loneliness of the patient.

History: The problem of the euthanasia is not however I specify of ours epoch; for a long time the physicians have had to make you forehead and for a long time you have met patient that asked them to be helped to anticipate his own death. And' for this that in the so-called one "oath of Ippocrate" it is found writing: "Not I will administer to some, even if required, a deadly medicine, neither I will suggest such a suggestion" And to the beginnings of the modern era the physician and philosopher English Francis Bacone wrote what desirable was highly that the physicians learned "the art to help the agonizzantis to go out from this world with more sweetness and serenity."

That what specific is however of our epoch, and that explains the intensify him of the problem, is the depth change that the conditions of the to die they have subìto to cause of the progress of the medicine, and, in general, of the improvement of the conditions and of the expectations of life. Up to not many decades ago, the death it came soon enough usually, or because the illness could not be effectively opposed, or because complicanzes rose up what infections pulmonary (the so-called good person, dear pneumonia, according to the definition of the old physicians), that were quickly revealed then deadly. Death happened primarily in house, and, even if it was always not a death "sweet and calm", the trial of the to die and, therefore, the pain and the suffering lasted however relatively little.

Today he dies later and not more for acute illnesses, how much instead for tied up chronic and degenerative illnesses to the old age, thing that has done to coin to Daniel Callahan the aphorism: "longer Life and health worse; longer illnesses and died slower; longer old age and insanity increasing."

Still, today the medicine is able of vicariare the functions of the most important organs vital and therefore to indefinitely hold in life a patient and, however, well over the point in which he can reasonably say that we are prolonging her life and not, instead, uselessly procrastinating the death. This is an important point; the traditional medical ethics is formed in an epoch in which very little it was able to be done for saving the life of the patient and that little it had to be fact. The imperative of the "vitalismo", that imposed to prolong to every cost the life of the patient, was a reaction to the impotence of the medicine, of forehead to the dramatic fact not to be able to succeed in saving a life, often still position of promises. Instead we cannot only do today a lot of, to save the life, but also to prolong it when "you cannot promise anything." You it sets then the problem to know if the punishment is worth of always to do everything that what we can do, up to the total expropriation of that that it commonly comes defined the "right to die with dignity."

Forms: as it is deduced by the definition: "action or omission mirante to...." two forms of euthanasia exist: 1°) a form so-called active and 2°) a passive. In the first one the physician, welcoming it application of a terminal patient, for which there is not more hopes, not only of recovery or improvement, but of attenuation of the sufferings, it administers an action lethal medicine after having does him of it to undersign it application.

The second, consists instead of suspending that usual therapy that serves to, to prolong the life and therefore the sufferings of the patient. To such purpose however it needs to make an important distinction among suspension of the therapy of the illness causes some death and suspension of the therapy of concomitant illnesses or intercorrenti. Exemplifying: in a patient of crab that turns at the end and what has at the same time a diabetic illness the suspension of the, therapy of this last quickly conducts to death, but you cannot be considered euthanasia, because the true cause of the death with its sufferings is the crab and not the diabetes. The same can tell him some therapy.

3°) One varying some active euthanasia is the so-called one "assisted suicide", that him verification when a physician or another person it furnishes some poison to a patient, what has applied for it, and assists to that it is ingested by the applicant, without lending some collaboration.

Ethical problems.
From how much statement him deduces that the problem of the euthanasia doesn't run over only the ethical aspect, moral and philosophical of the single patient, of the just body (right or no to the self-determination, right or less to a death dignified), or of the sanitary operators (to answer or less to the desperate one invocation of help from the suffering ones), but it also dresses again an aspect juridical that concerns both the legislator (punishable or less than who lends it own work for the euthanasia) that the persons responsible of the various categories professional, as well as the national errands or sovranazionali for the rights of the man and of the patient. You can affirm since that all the Organs competent they are expressed against the euthanasia allowing only her, suspension of the so-called therapeutic fury, measure with which him it intends the mass in action of relief provisions, instrumental and medicinal, tendenti to artificially prolong the life, also in absence of any hope of recovery or survival.

[razrif]

Originally Posted by aswad

What do you think about the euthansia ?
Are you agree with it or do you think this is immoral ?

Definition, history, forms, is juridical.

Definition: For Euthanasia, that etimologicamente means "good death", according to the Declaration of the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he intends: "an action or an omission that of nature, or at least in the intentions, proxy the death to the purpose to eliminate each pain."

This definition can be integrated adding to the concept of death without pain, that of "death with dignity", meaning with this last the respect that every person has to give to the really Me. This concept becomes more and more pregnant to our days since, in the western world, at least the eighty for one hundred of the deaths happen to proper house and among the affection of the joined ones not anymore, but in hospital environment, often characterized by the isolation and by her loneliness of the patient.

History: The problem of the euthanasia is not however I specify of ours epoch; for a long time the physicians have had to make you forehead and for a long time you have met patient that asked them to be helped to anticipate his own death. And' for this that in the so-called one "oath of Ippocrate" it is found writing: "Not I will administer to some, even if required, a deadly medicine, neither I will suggest such a suggestion" And to the beginnings of the modern era the physician and philosopher English Francis Bacone wrote what desirable was highly that the physicians learned "the art to help the agonizzantis to go out from this world with more sweetness and serenity."

That what specific is however of our epoch, and that explains the intensify him of the problem, is the depth change that the conditions of the to die they have subìto to cause of the progress of the medicine, and, in general, of the improvement of the conditions and of the expectations of life. Up to not many decades ago, the death it came soon enough usually, or because the illness could not be effectively opposed, or because complicanzes rose up what infections pulmonary (the so-called good person, dear pneumonia, according to the definition of the old physicians), that were quickly revealed then deadly. Death happened primarily in house, and, even if it was always not a death "sweet and calm", the trial of the to die and, therefore, the pain and the suffering lasted however relatively little.

Today he dies later and not more for acute illnesses, how much instead for tied up chronic and degenerative illnesses to the old age, thing that has done to coin to Daniel Callahan the aphorism: "longer Life and health worse; longer illnesses and died slower; longer old age and insanity increasing."

Still, today the medicine is able of vicariare the functions of the most important organs vital and therefore to indefinitely hold in life a patient and, however, well over the point in which he can reasonably say that we are prolonging her life and not, instead, uselessly procrastinating the death. This is an important point; the traditional medical ethics is formed in an epoch in which very little it was able to be done for saving the life of the patient and that little it had to be fact. The imperative of the "vitalismo", that imposed to prolong to every cost the life of the patient, was a reaction to the impotence of the medicine, of forehead to the dramatic fact not to be able to succeed in saving a life, often still position of promises. Instead we cannot only do today a lot of, to save the life, but also to prolong it when "you cannot promise anything." You it sets then the problem to know if the punishment is worth of always to do everything that what we can do, up to the total expropriation of that that it commonly comes defined the "right to die with dignity."

Forms: as it is deduced by the definition: "action or omission mirante to...." two forms of euthanasia exist: 1°) a form so-called active and 2°) a passive. In the first one the physician, welcoming it application of a terminal patient, for which there is not more hopes, not only of recovery or improvement, but of attenuation of the sufferings, it administers an action lethal medicine after having does him of it to undersign it application.

The second, consists instead of suspending that usual therapy that serves to, to prolong the life and therefore the sufferings of the patient. To such purpose however it needs to make an important distinction among suspension of the therapy of the illness causes some death and suspension of the therapy of concomitant illnesses or intercorrenti. Exemplifying: in a patient of crab that turns at the end and what has at the same time a diabetic illness the suspension of the, therapy of this last quickly conducts to death, but you cannot be considered euthanasia, because the true cause of the death with its sufferings is the crab and not the diabetes. The same can tell him some therapy.

3°) One varying some active euthanasia is the so-called one "assisted suicide", that him verification when a physician or another person it furnishes some poison to a patient, what has applied for it, and assists to that it is ingested by the applicant, without lending some collaboration.

Ethical problems.
From how much statement him deduces that the problem of the euthanasia doesn't run over only the ethical aspect, moral and philosophical of the single patient, of the just body (right or no to the self-determination, right or less to a death dignified), or of the sanitary operators (to answer or less to the desperate one invocation of help from the suffering ones), but it also dresses again an aspect juridical that concerns both the legislator (punishable or less than who lends it own work for the euthanasia) that the persons responsible of the various categories professional, as well as the national errands or sovranazionali for the rights of the man and of the patient. You can affirm since that all the Organs competent they are expressed against the euthanasia allowing only her, suspension of the so-called therapeutic fury, measure with which him it intends the mass in action of relief provisions, instrumental and medicinal, tendenti to artificially prolong the life, also in absence of any hope of recovery or survival.

[aswad]

I written too much

[Anisa]

Its a difficult subject Aswad.... I don't agree with it.

[mouhajir]

absolutly not agree!!

[aswad]

Happened to me that some days ago, there were in my ward a woman with cancer, she was going very bad, with strong pain and she was without chanches for live, for back like before, she was with cancer.

She asked we for Euthanasia, she written this her ask but here, euthanasia is not allowed.

In these cases, I'm agree with euthanasia.

[rocam]

Nowadays, there are many different rulings concerning Islam’s stance on euthanasia. I am really confused and would like you to furnish me with a detailed fatwa regarding the different types of euthanasia and the Islamic ruling regarding each.


In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we commend your pursuit of knowledge and your keenness to seek what is lawful and avoid what is not. We earnestly implore Allah to bless your efforts in this honorable way.

Linguistically speaking, euthanasia refers to ‘merciful death or killing’. In scientific terminology, it means ‘facilitating the death of an incurable patient at his own pressing request presented to the treating physician.’

Indeed, facilitating death by withdrawing artificial resuscitating apparatus from the patient who is clinically regarded as “dead” due to brain damage is a permissible act if the role of the treating patient is restricted to stopping the treatment instruments only. Indeed, there are different types of euthanasia and each type has its own detailed description and rulings.

To know more about the different types of euthanasia and the Islamic rulings regarding each type, we would like to cite for you the following Fatwa issued by the European Council for Fatwa and Research:



The Council surveyed the studies presented to it regarding euthanasia and after discussing them it arrived at the following conclusions:

First: the definition of euthanasia

The word (euthanasia) is originally a Greek word and it consists of two components: the prefix ‘eu’ which means ‘good, nice, merciful, or facilitated’, and the suffix ‘tathanos’ which means death or killing. Therefore, the word ‘euthanasia’ linguistically means ‘merciful death or killing’ or ‘good’ or facilitated death’.

In the terminology of modern science the word ‘euthanasia’ means “facilitating the death of an incurable patient at his own pressing request presented to the treating physician.”

Second: The various types of euthanasia

Euthanasia comes in a number of different means:

1. Direct or deliberate euthanasia:

This is done through giving the patient a lethal dose of curare or barbiturates or other derivatives of cyanide with the intention of killing. This has three cases:

a. The voluntary case, when the process is carried out at the pressing request of the patient who desires to die while he is fully conscious, or according to an already written testament.

b. The involuntary case, which is the case of a sane unconscious adult patient. The action to end his life is taken on the decision of the physician who thinks that killing him is for his or her own good, or according to the decision of the patient’s guardian or relatives who think that killing is in his or her best interests.

c. In the involuntary case where the patient is incapable of reasoning, whether a child or insane, the action is taken according to a decision made by the treating physician.

2. Assisted suicide:

In this case the patient ends his (or her) life by himself according to instructions given to him by another person that provides him with the information and devices that help him to die.

3. Indirect euthanasia:

This is done through giving the patient doses of tranquilizers or sedatives to abate the severe pain. With time the doctor will have to increase the doses to control the pain. It is a procedure preferred by therapists, but large doses may lead to difficulties in breathing and dysfunction of the cardiac muscle, which will result in death that was intended though anticipated beforehand.

4. Passive euthanasia

This is achieved by refusing to treat the patient or interrupting the treatment necessary for his survival, including the removal of the apparatus of artificial breathing from the patient in the resuscitating room when it is confirmed that his (or her) brain is dead and there is no hope of restoring his consciousness.

Third: The legal aspect of euthanasia:

Although the common medical traditions in the countries of the world and the majority of physicians still reject and strongly abhor the practice of euthanasia, and although the valid laws in most countries of the world consider the killing of a human in any way a crime punishable by law, euthanasia is being increasingly practiced in a number of European countries under the guise of misleading names that make authorities overlook it or make the courts refuse to apply the legal penalties against those who commit it. These events have almost become a daily practice in countries like Holland so much so that euthanasia has become something legalized by Dutch authorities.

Fourth: The justification offered by supporters of euthanasia

It seems that the practitioners of euthanasia depend on certain justifications, such as:

- The irreligious philosophy prevalent in the West, which measures the value of life by one’s contributions of production and creativity in and towards society. If one becomes dependant on others, it seems that it is better that one dies.

- Euthanasia would relieve the patient and free him from the suffering, agony, and pains that he cannot endure.

- Euthanasia would reduce the suffering of the patient’s relatives and friends who take care of him or her, and it would also spare the costs and economic burdens the family or the society bear. Besides, the advocates of euthanasia see that the patient has a personal right to decide his or her fate and has the right to be killed if he or she so desire.

Having considered the different legal stances Western countries take concerning euthanasia, both in approval or rejection, the Council decided the following:

1. The prohibition of direct active euthanasia and the prohibition of suicide and assisting in bringing it about, for according to the Shari`ah killing a patient suffering from a terminal illness is not permissible for the physician, the patient’s family, or the patient himself. The patient, whatever his illness, and however sick he (or she) is, shall not be killed because of desperation and loss of hope in recovery or to prevent the transfer of the patient’s disease to others, and whoever commits the act of killing will be a deliberate killer. The Qur’an confirms without a shadow of a doubt that homicide is absolutely forbidden, as Allah Almighty says: (And take not life, which Allah has made sacred, except by way of justice and law.) (Al-An`am 6: 151)

He Almighty also says,(Because
of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he killed all mankind.) (Al-Ma`idah 5: 32)

2. It is unlawful for the patient to kill himself (or herself) and it is unlawful for somebody else to kill him (or her) even if he is given leave to kill him. The former case will be suicide and the latter will be aggression against the other by killing him, for his permission does not render the unlawful act lawful. The patient does not posses his own soul to permit somebody else to take it. The Prophetic hadith is known regarding the prohibition of suicide in general. The person who commits suicide will be tortured in the Hellfire in the same way he (or she) killed himself. If he believes that suicide is lawful, he will be a disbeliever and will abide in the Hellfire forever; otherwise, he will be severely punished.

3. It is impermissible to kill the patient for fear that his (or her) disease may transfer through contagious infection, even if he is terminally sick (such as one suffering from AIDS). It is not permissible to kill him to prevent the spread of the disease, for there are many other means to do so, such as quarantine. On the contrary, the patient must be protected as a human being and be provided with the required food and medicine till his or her life comes to its natural end.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, “Allah created no disease but created something to cure it.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim)

In another hadith narrated by al-Tirmidhi we read:

“O Allah’s Servants! Seek treatment, for Allah does not create a disease but creates a treatment for it.” In the hadith narrated by Ahmad we read: “Allah created no disease but created something to cure it. Some may know it and some may not.” So these Prophetic hadiths give us hope of discovering cures for what we term today as ‘incurable’ diseases.

Indeed, we have witnessed the discovery of cures for what people considered at one time incurable diseases. Therefore, it is impermissible to kill the carrier of the disease because it is incurable, nor on the pretext of protecting the healthy people from it.

4. As for facilitating death by withdrawing artificial resuscitating apparatus from the patient who is clinically regarded as “dead” or “practically dead” because of the damage to the brainstem or brain, with which human beings live and feel; if the action of the physician is merely stopping the treatment instruments, it will be no more than giving up the treatment, in which case his action is legal and permissible, bearing in mind that these instruments can preserve the apparent life of the patient - represented by breathing and
circulation - though the patient is actually dead, for he cannot conceive, feel or be sensitive to anything because of the damage of the source of all that, namely the brain. Keeping the patient in that state would waste vital resources and would prevent other maybe curable patients from benefiting from the instruments being occupied for the practically dead patient.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503549272